My Conversation with Arianna Huffington

Arianna Huffington needs no introduction especially on this site. I spoke with her last night about her new book -- The Right is Wrong -- and how she sees the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Comments

[paganmist]

OH MY FREAKING GOD.

Charlie Rose? What the heck is wrong with you?

Interrupting over and over and over and over and over and over.

Since when has this become an acceptable manner of interviewing someone? Pummelling them? Talking them down?

Very nice, Charlie. I guess you're aiming for a job on Fox.

[Foohog]

I had to quit watching a few minutes in becaue of Gibson's constant interrupting.

I've been a reporter for the last 15 years at a small market radio station and the way the big kids in the national media constantly try to turn an interview with another person into a speech by themselves to show how knowledgable they are is revolting.

[marapem]

Charlie's constant interruptions has aggravated me for a long time. He may not do it all of his guests, but he does it enough to where I want to crawl through the television and tell him to be quiet and let the guest finish his/her thought.

I may not have been Arianna's biggest fan some years back, but in the last few years she has been taking on both sides of the aisle, and I have a new respect for her.

What Charlie did to her as she tried to explain her books was in excusable. He was beyond rude in my book. Whether he agreed with her or not, whether he liked the book or not, he didn't have to treat as if she were a half wit, and didn't know what she was talking about. My god the lady has a master's degree from either Oxford or Cambridge.

Charlie should apologize her. He was not exhibiting his southern gentleman manners his parents raised him with. He should be shamed of himself.

Charlie has never expressed whether he was for the war or not. He has had so many people who are trying to explain the war. And why they either agree with the war or disagree with the war. That has really turned me off. So why should he barrage someone who wrote about how the media is portraying the war and the Bush Administration.

[Marlyn]

Kudos to Arianna!

[EspressoAtNoon]

I always liked Charlie Rose until this interview. What a freakin idiot!

[HatingTheGame]

Charlie not only interrupts, but when he's trying to formulate a question, he seems to be struggle, thinking, ruminating, pausing, so much effort -- and plip - a stupid question. This was so obvious when he interviewed Iran's president Ahmadinejad . The guy ran circles around him, and it was obvious that he was laughing at poor Charlie.

Sometimes I think he does it purposefully so what the interviewee really wants to say doesn't get out, but then he (and PBS and MSM) can say "See! We have free speech! So what if you don't know any more after the show than before."

Just doing their part, I'm sure.

[Marlyn]

I agree. Charlie Rose obviously is personally threatened by Arianna's premise.

[scottymac11]

I've watched Charlie Rose for years. He has normally been accommodating and respectful in interviews regardless of any right wing Dufus's nation wrecking program. This time when a serious discussion is attempted concerning the grip these corporate dream weavers have on the public forum, he blusters endlessly, and splinters her message with interruptions,and red herrings. How condescending he was. Ariana you showed the patience of job. He did everything he could to stifle the message, but much got out anyway.

[blackjack]

Rose is part of the CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA, always has been. I just wish that all people would quit callimg it the MAIN STREAM MEDIA, for all that we see,hear or watch, is owned by a GIANT CORPORATION. We will never get our COUNTRY back until these GIANT CORPORATIONS are broken up and that is a fact.

[Marlyn]

CCM (CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA)

yeah, that's it.

[letsgetsmart]

When you started to explain about the delaying tactics of the right regarding battles that they know are lost but will fight on due to economic reasons, I became a little ticked at Charlie for changing the subject. This needs to be discussed in more detail so the public understands. The same with why the media spends so much time on sidetrack issues. It is not because a story is easy, it is because they want to change the subject of discussion away from Iraq and Afghanistan and their plans for Iran. I also think that people that have the ability to shine the light on public issues need to be more blunt. Betrayus is not a good general because he is seriously lacking in character and honesty. Lets see some editorials from you about the issues of this program. part 2

[Marlyn]

"It is not because a story is easy"

I agree, that is not the reason. And I felt that Arianna dropped the ball by saying they do it because it is easy. The real reason is, of course, that the owners of these networks don't want real issues to be discussed.

[letsgetsmart]

Arianna, I think that I have a better understanding of you after watching this. I would like to have a chat with you about the first half of this program because you started out with a number of ideas that were headed in the right direction until Rose interrupted you and changed the subject. Charlie lost a lot of ground with me from this program. Try this idea. I think the basic difference between the two parties right now is that the left is a collection of diverse opinions that are all struggling to be heard and think that their individual positions are more important for discussion then some others. The right is a machine. They control the media and all of their members and have plans laid out for long term gains. In simple terms the left is a hodge podge and the right is orchestrated. part 1

[wayoutleft]

rose disorients everyone with that "suspended in deep space" effect from his outer space black set. but ariana, accidently or not, wears a shade much lighter than her skin tone, so her skin tone is very glowing. this also avoids the ghost seance effect: a face kind of appearing suspended in space- which pple who wear dark colors fall victim to on charlie.

[bwither]

When did it become acceptable behavior for someone giving an interview to repeatedly talk over their guest?

[jukesgrrl]

I guess you don't watch Tim Russert, or Charles Gibson, or Chris Matthews, or Lou Dobbs, or Joe Scarborough, or Glenn Beck, or anybody on FOX, very often.

[apoyo]

His first question is "What's the point?" Obviously, he doesn't get it.
But he can lecture about economics!
He wasted so much time pretending to be dense.
I've never seen him so combative and defensive.

Watch last night's show with Fareed Zakaria.

[HeevenSteven]

Advice to Charlie: Never miss an opportunity to shut-up!

[nellie]

I love the way Arianna Huffington handles herself in an interview. She is informed, confident, non-combative and persuasive. I wish Rose had not derailed the conversation about the coverage of the Pentagon scandal. That was stunning. Just as Arianna is saying the coverage of Wright is what should have been devoted to the Pentagon story, Rose goes off on Wright for five minutes.

Brava Arianna. Another excellent television appearance. Thanks for speaking out for progressive politics ins such a competent and convincing way.

[conservicide]

Charlie coopted this interview, an interviewer should'nt talk over and talk MORE than the guest !!!

[letsplaynice]

It's too bad that we can't flag a blogger. I'll settle for commenting.

While Rose has a responsibility to vet Arianna's book and challenge its premise, he also has a responsibility to be fair and should have allowed Arianna to expound the details of her argument. By forcing her to narrow her complex arguments to simplistic points made in rebuttal, Rose blurred and distorted the argument instead of providing the clarity the interview should have provided.

[burnt]

good bye Charlie... it's a sad fact that even long-lasting relationships must sometimes come to an end. You left a very bad taste in my mouth... I wanted to spit it out. Unfortunately, there was a TV screen in the way.

alienated in Seattle

[nanotubz]

Saw parts of the show today. Rose made an idiot out of himself trying make Arianna appear to say something she didn't, only to be stopped mid-babble and corrected. He sounded and acted more like O'Reilly and his brethren. Definitely not a show for his highlights.

[Gingerously]

I'm sorry, Arianna, but you should stick to The Today Show because this appearance did you no favors. Every time you tried to get a Clinton dig in, he proved how little you know of the issues. And the biggest coup I can remember this site having is breaking the "bitter" story--undermining your own candidate. Good job.

[Gingerously]

"I'm sorry...aren't you in the media?" Ha ha!

[Aslanspal]

Did Arianna get a word in edgewise?? looks like she did...Charlie must be reading the Huffington Post and how his self-absorbed pontifications bore the hell out of a lot of people.

[Knoxy]

I saw this interview this afternoon and was so stunned by Charlie Rose I could hardly watch it to the end. He interrupted Ariana continuously to the point where It was if it was all about his opinion, and NOTHING else. He was rude and arrogant and, in my book, it was reprehensible behavior. Even if one did not agree with the thoughts Arianna was attempting to express, it was agitating. The remarkable thing is that it was a perfect example of a point Arianna was trying to make about the media today. He clearly did not agree with what she had to say so the result was an interview conducted in an extremely biased manner.
This showed me one more place I choose to give up as a source of information. Even an interviewer who used to be easy for me to watch and who interviewed many interesting people has become impossible. I am getting down to the BBC only. How can this be?
The best part of watching this interview was observing Ariana Huffington come from a place of equanimity throughout the entire ordeal. She was polite and even seemed to keep her sense of humor. Remarkable!
After years, no more Charlie Rose for me.
J. Miller

[w&cheneysuck]

AGREED! He is an idiot....just like the rest of the media pundits!

[Aslanspal]

Having seen it again for the 2nd time, I agree with you but I have seen him worse.